Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why WinLInk is illegal on HF  (Read 5521 times)
KB5WBH
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2009, 06:41:12 PM »

Or better yet, file your concerns with the FCC and see what they tell you.

73
mike kb5wbh.
Logged
KC5CSG
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2009, 08:42:57 PM »

Well sir,

I think the FCC is very well aware of all that you mentioned and guess what, they don't seem too concerned about it. Maybe it really is a non issue. Heck, you've had kiddie porn on the net for years. I've watched hams send porn to each other in the Fort Polk, LA area on SSTV and that isn't encrypted at all. This was before the internet made it easier to send this junk to each other.

Like someone else said, you can go to 75 meters on any given night and get your fill of filth and it's in glorious plain text........The FCC doesn't do anything. I agree with the FCC, if they think it's a non issue then it really is an non issue.

Oh, the reason I'm here is because I tested and got the license and I have an interest. Not to enforce rules but an interest in learning a "little" something and having fun. Hell with what I've read about winlink lately I just may give it a try myself. Thanks for pointing me in the direction.

73

KC5CSG
Logged
KB5WBH
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2009, 03:55:42 AM »

Charles, likes to make outlandish claims then goes on long rants on "how it is" then can't understand when not everyone agrees with him. Then he plays the victim part because no one takes his word on it, he takes it personally and he starts the name calling..ect. If you have read any of his posts, you will continually see this routine.

It all boils down to this, some of these guys operate by his hf packet frequency. He doesn't like it, sometimes they clash. Happens all the time on HF, especially during a contest. If they operated where he didn't notice them, you would never hear a peep out of him, period.

73
mike kb5wbh


Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2009, 05:14:53 PM »

re "Heck Charles, we can all intercept the filth that goes on on 75M in the open every night and nobody does anything about that."

This kind of logic leads to ruination. "Because one set of operators flagrantly violate the amateur regulations without consequences, its okay for others to do so". If this takes hold, pretty soon, everyone will be QRMing everyone else, operating wherever they please, and generally creating chaos. The amateur community has always been expected to police itself. The buck stops here.

I believe that Charles posts these messages because he honestly believes that many ops don't understand just how flagrantly WinLink violates both the regulations (willfull interference is unquestionably illegal, and WinLink PMBOs unquestionably transmit on already-occupied frequencies). His assumption is that once educated, responsible amateurs would naturally avoid using WinLink until its technical problems were corrected.  Chastising Charles for this activity is like chastizing a good Samaritan for giving CPR to a stricken stranger -- he's doing the best he can in difficult circumstances.

The fact that the ARRL and FCC choose to look the other way doesn't make WinLink's behavior acceptable; it just reflects poorly on both organizations.

The good news is that WinMor, the new digital protocol being developed by the WinLink team to replace Pactor 3, includes logic to detect busy frequencies and thereby avoid QRMing ongoing QSOs. The WinLink team deployed busy detection logic in SCAMP -- a predecessor to WinMor that was beta tested but then abandoned for other reasons. SCAMP's busy detector was very effective; if WinMor's is at least as good, then WinLink's transition from Pactor 3 to WinMor should restore it to good amateur citizenship.

     73,

           Dave, AA6YQ
Logged
KB5WBH
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2009, 06:35:09 PM »

Dave, Winlink will not stop using PIII because of Winmor. It will just add that capability to the pmbo or RMS Pactor systems.
Its still not AX25, so Charles will not be happy with it either :>
73
Mike kb5wbh

Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2009, 06:51:35 PM »

re "Dave, Winlink will not stop using PIII because of Winmor. It will just add that capability to the pmbo or RMS Pactor systems."

It will be very difficult for Winlink to continue the use of Pactor III without busy frequency detection if WinMor demonstrates the feasibility of effective busy frequency detection. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the SCAMP busy frequency detector could at any time be incorporated in the current PMBO design to prevent the QRMing of existing QSOs; the same is true of Winmor's busy frequency detector. If Winlink upgrades its PMBOs to use busy frequency detection to prevent Pactor III from QRMing QSOs, that would be fine.
Logged
G0GQK
Member

Posts: 634




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2009, 02:26:30 PM »

Reading the comments it seems to me that there are many radio amateurs who are quite tolerant of a situation where what could be regarded as a not genuine amateur radio activity, is quite acceptable.

References to the activities of a number of users of 80 metres which the authorities are ignoring, so if the authorities don't make any objections, then its all OK. Yes ?

Perhaps many of those responding are not being affected by the QRM that this system creates, and if Winlink wandered around a little more and strayed into a few nets on SSB, the disturbance it creates would cause more than a few angry words from those who chat to their friends every day on the same frequency

G0GQK
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12801




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2009, 02:54:34 PM »

I never made the assertion that lack of enforcement makes illegal content okay. I'm just making the point that being able to monitor WinLink content is not likely to curtail any illegal content any more than being able to monitor SSB has curtailed it on 75M.

If WinLink is keying up on top of ongoing QSO's that's one thing. Making unsubstantiated accusations that it is filled with porno and terrorist communications is quite another. You are more likely to get changes made if you stick to realistic facts that can be substantiated rather than making wild accusations.

I'm not a WinLink user so I have no dog in the fight.

Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2009, 07:04:05 PM »

"If WinLink is keying up on top of ongoing QSO's that's one thing. Making unsubstantiated accusations that it is filled with porno and terrorist communications is quite another."

What makes you think they are unsubstantiated? WinLink's history as a vehicle for terrorist comms goes back to 2002, FYI.

The question is not how anybody knows that WinLink is being used for illegal purposes, but rather how do YOU know that it isn't?

Amateur radio communications are supposed to be in the clear, monitorable by all for the purpose of self-policing.

If there were no illegal communications over WinLink, them why the secrecy?

Try asking a WinLink administrator for a peek at the messages he transports... - You'll get a big, fat NO.

Think it through, if you're not just another mindless, characterless WinLink troll.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Logged
KC5CSG
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2009, 07:40:16 PM »

Sir,

When you made the accusations without seeing the infractions yourself, your claims have then become unsubstantiated. What data do you have that proves terrorists have been using this as a tool since 2002? ASSUMING the worst doesn't mean the worst is happening. I like to think I live in a country where you're innocdent UNTIL proven guilty. Do you have any proof to back your claims of CHILD PORN and TERRORISTIC activities? Both of those claims are VERY serious indeed.

Yes, they're guilty of keying over QSO's that were in progress, big deal. There are tons of people on HF that invest huge sums of money in the antennas and amplifiers and most I've noticed have no problem with stomping all over my 20 Watt ass. I don't run around screaming Amps and very well made antennas are tools of perverts and terrorists. I just move on and find some place else I can enjoy myself. I have seen your posts on that "other" site and some of the stuff you have had to say about winlink users is quite insulting. You have brought this issue to the point that even if you wanted to work with them to find a peaceful solution they'll most likely tell you to go to hell. Your lame accusations of CHILD PORN would prompt even me to tell you where you can go.

So what if what they're doing is technically illegal. Hell, jumping on a repeater every night to jaw jack with a friend can be considered using ham radio for regular communications that can be reasonably be supplied by another service say for instance CB or telepone? You want to start a crusade against the regular rag chew groups that put the repeaters to use? Want to accuse them of TERRORIST activity? Want to make a signature that says, "If you too poor to own a cell phone don't get a friend"?

You have completely gone about solving this problem in the wrong way and the damage you've done to your reputation is beyond repair. Good luck in your efforts but I think you're just pissing into the wind.

73

KC5CSG
Logged
KB5WBH
Member

Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2009, 06:58:56 AM »

Dave, this came from the website in the FAQ section.

"Q940 - When WINMOR is implemented, will I still be able to use my Pactor equipment?

A940 - Yes It is expected that the HF RMS stations will continue to service Pactor users, in addition to WINMOR users; same frequencies, same Connection procedures."

73
mike kb5wbh
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12801




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2009, 12:23:59 PM »

Well, WinLink which uses PactorIII is NOT illegal - not even technically. The FCC has rules that permit PactorIII operation on the ham bands. It is not encrypted, it is encoded for purposes of improving the communications link and that is permitted by the FCC. There is no FCC rule that requires communications on the ham bands to be transmitted in a mannor that permits easy copy by everyone. The only rule prohibits encryption for the purpose obscuring the content.

So, the title of this whole thread "Why WinLink is illegal on HF" is totally false because the FCC has already ruled that it is NOT illegal.

If you do a little research I believe you'll find that Charles was once a part of WinLink. He had a falling out with them and ever since starts one of these "WinLink is illegal" threads from time to time.

I will agree that there is a QRM issue with remote operators triggering a PMBS on an occupied (or nearby) frequency. Some of that is I'm sure caused by operators not monitoring the frequency first but often its a matter of no propogation between the user station and the QRMed station.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2009, 01:12:40 PM »

re "I will agree that there is a QRM issue with remote operators triggering a PMBS on an occupied (or nearby) frequency. Some of that is I'm sure caused by operators not monitoring the frequency first but often its a matter of no propogation between the user station and the QRMed station."

This behavior is what makes WinLink illegal; it directly violates §97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

When a WinLink PMBO is activated by a remote station and QRMs a local QSO already in progress, its actions are unquestionably willfull (as opposed to accidental).

Basically, WinLink sold both the ARRL and FCC a "bill of goods", claiming that the remote operator that activates the PMBO can ensure that the frequency is clear beforehand. This is completely bogus due to the hidden transmitter effect, which you acknowledge above.

Adding a competent busy frequency detector to the PMBO would eliminate this problem. The WinLink Development team has possessed the technology to do this for years. There is no excuse for their failure to do so, or for the ARRL's or FCC's failure to require them to do so.

The ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal would have significantly increased the range of frequencies on which unattended stations like WinLink could operate. Large numbers of comments to sent to the FCC highlighted both the hidden transmitter problem and the ARRL's failure to address it, projecting chaos if unattended stations were given a broader allocation. The ARRL ultimately withdrew its proposal before the FCC issued a ruling, citing "larger than expected opposition by the amateur community".

So we're now in an awkward period where its clear to all parties that unattended stations are toxic, but the "WinLink is critical to emergency response" positioning is evidently preventing the ARRL and FCC from banning unattended stations without busy frequency detectors. The ARRL created a "new protocol development" effort to supposedly address this problem, but the person leading it has since retired, and to my knowledge this effort never gained serious traction.

I'm hoping that the successful deployment of Winmor will allow peace with honor -- WinLink can shift to a less expensive and QRM-free protocol, and the existing PMBOs can either be retired or upgraded to include Winmor's busy frequency detector.

    73,

         Dave, AA6YQ


 
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12801




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2009, 04:17:46 PM »

This behavior is what makes WinLink illegal; it directly violates §97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."
------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that the majority of operators are NOT willfully or maliciously causing interferrence. Most of the time they are not aware of it. I agree with the idea of a busy frequency detector and I have always thought that restricting all automatic or semi-automtic station to specific frequency segments (except in a declared emergency) would be a good idea. That's not an FCC requirement at the moment however.

On the other side I've tried to have some PactorI keyboard to keyboard QSOs on a clear frequency and been deliberatly QRMed by people throwing carriers on my mark frequency. I know it was deliberate because when I moved, they moved to zero beat my mark again. I figure that they couldn't copy Pactor and assumed that I was a PMBO that they were trying to QRM.
Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2009, 08:43:22 AM »

The Win-Lids know what their equipment does - and put it on the air anyway. The interference they cause is willful at the very least.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!